Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 162 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat/Modvat - Interpretation of statutes of Rule 57CC - manufacture of gelatin - Phosphoryl Liquor/Mother Liquor removed - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the reading of the Rule 57CC and Rule 6 the same applies to the final product, dutiable or exempted and makes no distinction between a intended final product or unintended emergence of by-product. The said rule in simple terms, requires the assessee to pay an amount equal to 8% of the value of the goods cleared at nil rate of duty, even where the inputs have been used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of such final product. As we have already held that HCL has been used in the manufacture of final product Phosphoryl 'A' & 'B', which attract nil rate of duty, the provisions of Rule 57CC would apply. The expression "in or in relation to" has been interpreted by various decisions to be of wide connotation. It is impossible to obtain the mother liquor or the resultant Phosphoryl 'A' & 'B', without the use of HCL. As long as it is held that HCL is used in the manufacture of Phosphoryl 'A' & 'B', the applicability of provisions of Rule 57CC cannot be ruled out. The issue in the instant case is not relatable to reversal of the credit originally taken by the appellant on the ground of emergence of any by-product. The issue before us is a straight and simple interpretation of Rule 57CC, which as already held does not make any distinction between exempt final product or exempt by product. As along as the excisable product cleared from the assessees factory enjoys exemption or attracts nil rate of duty, provisions of Rule 57CC will come into play. T he straight answer to the above question lies in the literal interpretation of the language employed in the said Rule without straining to find out the legislative intent, especially when the language used is unambiguous. As already observed, the provisions of Rule 57CC or Rule 6 envisage common use of inputs in two final products i.e. one dutiable and other exempted, for the applicability of the same. As such, we are of the view that as long as two final products emerging out of use of common inputs are excisable and one of them is exempted, the provisions of Rule 57CC will apply. The exempted final product may be intended manufacture or unintended by-product. As such, we agree with the view expressed in Binani Zinc Ltd.[2005 (4) TMI 148 - CESTAT, BANGALORE]]. Reference is answered is above terms. File is sent back to the regular bench for disposal of appeal.
|